Dispelling myths about Ford engines.

I ran accross this post a couple days ago and I just can't let it go. I see so many clouded inaccuracies pertaining to Ford Motor Company products (especially engines) that sometimes I have to chime in. If only to throw a lifeline to some of the younger guys new to the hobby. Chevrolet and GM guys don't get to define Ford stuff as long as I'm here. There were and still are very good reasons why FoMoCo engine and driveline history evolved like it did.

I'm bringing this subject up in response to a now closed thread that started: "Why do many still build Fords & use Chevy eng./trans.? " and ended with "Wow... What a rediculous thread... ".

In the middle I saw this: ["After reading through all 6 pages of this thread, I am shocked that nobody has really nailed down the reason(s) why people prefer to use a SBC instead of a SBF.

If you have ever done an engine conversion and tried to use a SBF, you always come to the same conclusion. The oil filter is in the wrong place if you're putting it in a chassis with narrow frame rails, or if the steering box is bolted to the frame. The front sump oil pan is usually right in the same location as your steering linkage. The interchanging of parts between any Ford engine built between 1955 and 1985 is a pain in the****. You had better know what month the engine was built, and you're building a 351, good luck. Cleveland, Windsor, Midland.....what a mess when you're trying to order parts.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Ford engines. I like Chevys because they fit better. The oil filter is in the rear, out of the way. The rear sump pans will clear 90% of the steering linkages out there. The distributor location in the rear cleans up the front of the motor. They look more proportioned than a SBF. Chevy Orange looks better on an engine than Ford Blue. When dressed up, a SBC looks nicer.

You can save yourself a bunch of headaches and packaging issues by using a SBC instead of a SBF. Most guys don't want to hassle with that kind of stuff when they're building a car.

Disassemble a SBC and a SBF and lay all of the parts out and compare each piece. The Chevy rods and cranks are beefier, the block is beefier, and the heads and intake flow better. Compare the two distributors, big difference.

Any Chevy transmission from a 6 cyl, a SBC, and a BBC will all bolt up. Can't say that about Ford. You've got the Big pattern, the small pattern, etc.

I like seeing a Ford in a Ford, but my cars will always have a Chevy powerplant."]



I have to answer this for whatever it's worth, starting here: ["The oil filter is in the wrong place if you're putting it in a chassis with narrow frame rails, or if the steering box is bolted to the frame."]

A picture is worth a thousand words.




Next this:[ "The interchanging of parts between any Ford engine built between 1955 and 1985 is a pain in the****. You had better know what month the engine was built, and you're building a 351, good luck. Cleveland, Windsor, Midland.....what a mess when you're trying to order parts."]

Ford Motor Company has different engine families that were designed to serve different purposes. All of the engines are called Ford engines. GM and Chrysler have many different engines families too, like Buick, Olds, Desoto and Dodge. These brands have engines that don't interchange parts well but because they have different names from the same manufacturer I guess that's fine. Go figure....

Then this:["Disassemble a SBC and a SBF and lay all of the parts out and compare each piece. The Chevy rods and cranks are beefier, the block is beefier, and the heads and intake flow better. Compare the two distributors, big difference."]

Obviously the poster is comparing sbc internals to the smaller 289 - 302 Ford engines. Compare a 350 Chev to a 352 Fe a 351 Windsor or 351 Cleveland and I don't think the same conclusions can be drawn. Going back to the Flathead era, Ford has built their engines proportionate to the cid capacity. Economy applications got the 136" V8-60 in a tiny lightweight package. Standard Fords and Mercs got medium sized displacements and medium sized blocks of 221" to 255" . Heavy trucks and Lincolns got heavier blocks with big 337" Flatheads. Doesn't that make sense? The same holds true for the overhead era.

The proportion of the crank journal diameters and deck height to the length of stroke are correct on small block Fords. With many other brands it's a one size fits all compromise. So it seems there are two ways to look at that isn't there? In fact there is a thread floating around the HAMB called the "Bridgeport diet", which is specifically targeted at how to eliminate unecessary weight from the small block Chevy. Why would you want to do that? Is weight control important to total vehicle dynamics? I realize you pop a blower on a V8 with nitro for drag racing and you need a thick solid block. GM and Chrysler engines are hefty buggars and maybe thats why you see them alot in early drag racing history. Flip the page over to road racing and a different story is told. Great power to weight ratio Ford V8's like the 289 Cobra and 427 Fe were the dominant American V8's in those applications. We all know that road racing is far and away more synergistic with the actual passenger production car driving experience. To spell it out thats accelerating, braking, turning left and right.


Of course this:[" Any Chevy transmission from a 6 cyl, a SBC, and a BBC will all bolt up. Can't say that about Ford. You've got the Big pattern, the small pattern, etc."]

All I've got to say is Buick, Olds, Pont, versus Chevy. Why couldn't they have been the same?


Lastly I don't have words to match this: ["They look more proportioned than a SBF. Chevy Orange looks better on an engine than Ford Blue. When dressed up, a SBC looks nicer."]


I'll just put up some*****tered pics for fun. Fords never look proportioned or have visual appeal, only Chevy.

 

Why not a couple more?

 

Well I wasn't going to post because I don't want to start a******** match with you but why the hell not. Compair a buick with an SBC apples to oranges, early to late ford engines in the same engine family the parts donot interchange not even the bell housings.

I understand that you think the sun rises and sets in Henry's toilet but why start a******** match. Just put real quality info out there and let the chips fall where they may. You started this thread down the same road as the other thread that got itself closed.

 

IMO

The early ford stuff is crude. Just look at the quality of the engine components. poor casting, bad designs, poor quality control, just plain cheap.

That said, everyone could afford to buy one, they were readily available, got the job done. What more do you need?

The 60s engines were as built as well as any other engine manufacturer.

Today, I am impressed with Ford engine design over the GM products.
however, i still can't get over the cheap plastic parts that are attached...

Long live the SBC...

 

Putting on the popcorn...

 

how come all those engines are shown backwards?

 

I like a lot of different types of engines, Ford, Chevy, Mopar, etc. But I do agree that building a Ford powered car adds a lot of complexity to a build because the part interchange just ins't there. I'd much rather spend my time building the rest of the car than tracing down obscure engine parts that are a total PITA to find and replace.

I think Ford had great engine designs up until recent years when they went to the aluminum mod motors, 4.6, 5.4, quad cam, etc. I've personally witnessed 3 of them completely FRAG at less that 50k miles and under normal driving conditions. Those motors are TOTAL***** in my opinion. Personally, I just don't feel that aluminum is an appropriate material for an engine block, no matter the alloys and engineering involved. I wont ever buy another aluminum engines Ford again, they just aren't tough enough to hold up to my driving style like the old ones were. I know this stuff is O/T anyway but I'm just sayin' GO IRON OR GO HOME! I'm back to 302 Fords and 350 Chevies. Screw modern engines with their low quality*********.

 

It's the little***** that keeps you off the road

 

I really appreciate a Ford in a Ford, Chev in a Chev, etc. I suppose any engine has it's +/- but the sbc has become so common place that's I find it boring. I think some of the younger crowd just followed the heard. I do know that Ford put's the distributor where God intended it should be (they sinned with the Y block and all was forgiven). So much easier when timing, removing, etc. What about a Honda in a Toyota (pre '63 of course)?

 

Well, I was onboard with ya until you said this:
GM and Chrysler have many different engines families too, like Buick, Olds, DeSoto and Dodge. These brands have engines that don't interchange parts well but because they have different names from the same manufacturer I guess that's fine. Go figure....

You can throw slop at gm all day long but please keep your reference to MotherMopar defined by the same generational boundaries as you choose to define the FoMoCo engines.
The reference to Dodge and DeSoto are obvious 1950's Hemi engine concerns but yet you don't talk about the 239-312...just the late models.
Starting in 1956 the A engine series (the venerable 318) was adopted for the Plymouth and by 1958 the B&RB engines were used across the board.
No one can claim issues with interchangeability on these engines. And, although you failed to mention, durability is second to none.

Then you lost me with:
Chrysler engines are hefty buggars and maybe thats why you see them alot in early drag racing history.
If hefty, as in stout, then I whole-heartedly agree, but I really thought the reason was their ability to make mountains of power.
And, I do recall plenty of FE engines in the old days of drag racing, even the occasional T/F car, so do they also get a seemingly derogatory label?

I actually like Ford engines, along with the Buicks and Cads, but I try to not besmirch them just to make my Mopars look better.
Yes, like you, I have little use for the bow-ties, but unless someone starts interjecting them in a Mopar thread then I really try to ignore them. They can have their own threads and pat each other on their collective backs all day long, it simply does not affect me.

.

 

I like to build what i want, I'm not a sheep, I think this is a useless thread also

 

Oh good, the weekly Ford -vs- Chevy thread has started. Lets see what great new info can be brought up this time.

 

Yeah...

We know.